Pc Long and the piece of rag.

[Trevor Marriott]

QUOTE=Trevor Marriott;396298



Hi Trevor,

I would like to make a few comments here if you donīt mind.

I have no problem with your theory even though I do not think that it is correct.

Anyway, you say here that there are four reasons given by researches for the killer supposedly cutting or tearing the apron piece and you say that they donīt stand up to close scrutiny.

I do not know what these four reasons are. But I am sure that the reason I have found is not one of them and, more important, that reason does stand up to scrutiny very well indeed.

I am not able to discuss it yet, but just to let you know: there was a very specific motive and that motive was the reason. It is also connected to the GSG which the killer wrote.



I really appreciate everything you write here, Trevor, and I think it is very important. Everything you say has an explanation, whatever statement you make. Good critical thinking.

Best wishes, Pierre

The four old accepted theories surrounding the apron are

1. He took the organs away in it
2. He cut it to clean his knife
3. He cut it to wipe his hands
4. He cut it because he had cut his own hand and wanted a bandage

https://www.trevormarriott.co.uk

[Phil Carter]

The maths doesn't seem quite right.

If he was there at 2.55 then before that at 2.20, would he not have been there before this - assuming the exact same speed of patrolling his beat - at 1.45?



Sorry Phil I don't see the logic here. Why do you think the carrier of the apron would have chosen the "shortest and quickest way from Mitre Square to Goulston Street"? I mean, if the murder of Eddowes occurred at about 1.40 and the apron was not deposited until after 2.20, it doesn't appear that the carrier of the apron chose the shortest and quickest route does it?

We do not know WHEN the apron was deposited David.
It could well have been deposited before 02.20am without Long seeing it. We dont know. Can you guarantee he looked into and shone his lamp into EVERY entrance in Goulston St? Many are exsctly the same.


Phil

[Phil Carter]

Also David,

Whether the mathematics of time is right or wrong. 01.45 or 01.50..the principle is the same.
The carrier of said apron vis a vis Long. Either Long is in frobt if him walking towards him from the Wentworth St entrance to Goulston St..or the carrier is behind him as Long walks towards Wentworth St walking down Goulston St


Phil

[PaulB]

I don't see the point of what you seem to be saying, Phil. P.C. Long wasn't asked if he had seen the apron before 2:20am, but that he didn't see it is implicit in his reply to whether the apron was there at 2:20am. It really doesnt matter when the murderer reached Goulston Street does it? Especially if he was able to clean up at a common lodging house. One could speculate that such a lodging was located between Mitre Square and Goulston Street, that the murderer went there, washed up, then left, passing through Goulston Street, where he threw away the apron piece. Again, I'm not saying that's what he did, I'm just saying that if the evidence supports such a speculation...

[Phil Carter]

As to why the carrier would walk that way..quickest way..into Goulston St..well..it takes a thief to catch a thief David..if YOU were the carrier. .would you be walk along the main road with the bloody rag or tey to dice down a dark back street?

Logic .less chance of if being seen



Phil

[Roy Corduroy]

The four old accepted theories surrounding the apron are

1. He took the organs away in it
2. He cut it to clean his knife
3. He cut it to wipe his hands
4. He cut it because he had cut his own hand and wanted a bandage

Hi, again, Trevor. Again, the only thing which has anything to do with body parts is number 1. I know one person who wrote 1., Wickerman.

I know of no source for 2, 3, and 4. Do you? I know that none of these theories 1. to 4. are contained in Scotland Yard Investigates, by Evans & Rumbelow, a book which I know you haven't read, because you told me so on How Brown's site.

I'm not arguing any reason. I've never given a reason for why the killer cut a piece of her apron and took it. I don't have to. Simply the fact everyone from 1888 to today agrees it happened, because it is very clear from the physical evidence at the time. It doesn't need a reason. You are the only one arguing reasons.

You are the only one arguing that if there was no good reason, it didn't happen. Which is the opposite of evidence. The opposite of police work. What you said you did. The evidence is he cut the piece of apron and deposited it in Goulston Street.

You seem to be arguing against yourself Trevor. And believe, me, I'm Okay with that.

Roy

[David Orsam]

We do not know WHEN the apron was deposited David.
It could well have been deposited before 02.20am without Long seeing it. We dont know. Can you guarantee he looked into and shone his lamp into EVERY entrance in Goulston St? Many are exsctly the same.

I understand that we don't know for certain that it was deposited before 2.20 but shouldn't your post have made clear that your premise is that PC Long's evidence was wrong and that it must have been deposited prior to 2.20? In fact, shouldn't you have made clear that your premise is that it was deposited as soon as possible following the murder?

Otherwise your claim about where the carrier of the apron "logically" would have been in relation to Long doesn't make sense does it?

[David Orsam]

Whether the mathematics of time is right or wrong. 01.45 or 01.50..the principle is the same.
The carrier of said apron vis a vis Long. Either Long is in frobt if him walking towards him from the Wentworth St entrance to Goulston St..or the carrier is behind him as Long walks towards Wentworth St walking down Goulston St

How is the principle the same? Five minutes is a long time and Long could have been at many different places on his beat in that period. So how can you possibly say where the carrier would have been vis a vis Long?

And you need to premise your argument on what can only be an assumption that the carrier headed immediately from Mitre Square to Goulston Street after murdering Eddowes, which you haven't done.

[Phil Carter]

I don't see the point of what you seem to be saying, Phil. P.C. Long wasn't asked if he had seen the apron before 2:20am, but that he didn't see it is implicit in his reply to whether the apron was there at 2:20am. It really doesnt matter when the murderer reached Goulston Street does it? Especially if he was able to clean up at a common lodging house. One could speculate that such a lodging was located between Mitre Square and Goulston Street, that the murderer went there, washed up, then left, passing through Goulston Street, where he threw away the apron piece. Again, I'm not saying that's what he did, I'm just saying that if the evidence supports such a speculation...

Pierre,

This is a point that shows dead theorising. Not just you. But many over the years.
We look at what we are told and believe it to be true. Look at the performance of the police in Goulston St. No uniform opinion as to content of writing nor placement. So...the police comments on the simplest of evidence is faulty.
Ergo..think outside the box. What if Long is just coceting his backside? Policemen do that. Often.

Long may not be telling the whole story.

And while you and others will croak about "sensationalism" etc... I take each comment on their merits. Given the debacle of evidence presented... I dobt HAVE to beliece the police were all that capable of doing their jobs. Warren..Swanson included.


Phil

[Phil Carter]

How is the principle the same? Five minutes is a long time and Long could have been at many different places on his beat in that period. So how can you possibly say where the carrier would have been vis a vis Long?

And you need to premise your argument on what can only be an assumption that the carrier headed immediately from Mitre Square to Goulston Street after murdering Eddowes, which you haven't done.

Work it out yourself David. It isnt hard.
Im not here to help you. You don't seem to need it.


Phil

[David Orsam]

As to why the carrier would walk that way..quickest way..into Goulston St..well..it takes a thief to catch a thief David..if YOU were the carrier. .would you be walk along the main road with the bloody rag or tey to dice down a dark back street?

Logic .less chance of if being seen

Are you serious?

Do you walk along a main road where there are lots of people with whom you can blend in or do you walk along a dark back street where you might encounter a police officer who will wonder why you are walking along a dark back street?

I'm not saying that the killer must have walked along a main road, only that your so called "logic" is not logic at all, just a random assumption.

For all we know the killer did try to walk the fastest route but saw a constable patrolling the street he wanted to walk down so headed off in a different direction requiring him to come back later. Or perhaps he hid somewhere to avoid being stopped by the police near the crime scene.

So many options that I just can't see the point of what you are attempting to do.

[David Orsam]

Work it out yourself David. It isnt hard.
Im not here to help you. You don't seem to need it.

No, you're right, I don't need help. I know that can't answer the question in a sensible way which is obviously why you haven't even attempted to do so. But I did want to give you the opportunity.

[Phil Carter]

I understand that we don't know for certain that it was deposited before 2.20 but shouldn't your post have made clear that your premise is that PC Long's evidence was wrong and that it must have been deposited prior to 2.20? In fact, shouldn't you have made clear that your premise is that it was deposited as soon as possible following the murder?

Otherwise your claim about where the carrier of the apron "logically" would have been in relation to Long doesn't make sense does it?

Not content with telling Pierre how to write a post..it is my turn now. Very rude.

Give it a rest David. Now.

And don't try a come back to this. I'm not interested in your compulsive replying.

If you ever come up with any ideas of your own. . Do give us fair warning. We don't want to die of shock.


Phil

[Phil Carter]

Are you serious?

Do you walk along a main road where there are lots of people with whom you can blend in or do you walk along a dark back street where you might encounter a police officer who will wonder why you are walking along a dark back street?

I'm not saying that the killer must have walked along a main road, only that your so called "logic" is not logic at all, just a random assumption.

For all we know the killer did try to walk the fastest route but saw a constable patrolling the street he wanted to walk down so headed off in a different direction requiring him to come back later. Or perhaps he hid somewhere to avoid being stopped by the police near the crime scene.

So many options that I just can't see the point of what you are attempting to do.

You have asked for this.

Its nigh on 2am.

Halse testified he only met TWO people. .and not on the main Road.

No other policeman searching saw a soul.

So "crowded streets"????


Yes. I am serious. Think.


Phil

[David Orsam]

Not content with telling Pierre how to write a post..it is my turn now. Very rude.

Give it a rest David. Now.

And don't try a come back to this. I'm not interested in your compulsive replying.

If you ever come up with any ideas of your own. . Do give us fair warning. We don't want to die of shock.

I'll reply to whatever I like Phil. Just because you've messed up your post doesn't mean you need to get aggressive with me.

And might I say that it's the coming up with "ideas" that seems to be the problem here. The ones I keep reading here are wacky ideas, unsupported by evidence or based on a misunderstanding of the evidence. So thanks for the invitation but I think I'll avoid developing the types of "ideas" that you seem to find so fascinating.